Given that we've gone about 65 million years without a substantial asteroid impact, I'm not too concerned. I know there have been asteroids that could have destroyed cities if they'd happened to land on one, but I wouldn't really consider that substantial.

In a community where a slacker is someone who saves only 1/3 of his income

If Opponent Process was here we'd be reminded that we are a self-selected special interest group or some such.

By the time an asteroid hits us, I hope I've spent and enjoyed my money.

Me too because I hope it never happens or at least has the common courtesy of not happening for another 10,000 years or so.I didn't know it was Chinese new year [Apparently I live in a deep, dark cave] - I would have grabbed some Champagne! Enjoy!

I like the thread title, but think that the asteroid bit steers the main idea in the wrong direction.

Usually, it takes something like a health scare or the unanticipated death of a close friend or family member to serve as a wake up call. There are lots of commonly occurring, everyday kinds of factors that should keep the high priority of appreciating every precious moment in balance with, as letsgobobby so pointedly puts it, watching our money "grow into a big pile."

Why not delay all gratification? We have no guarantee of tomorrow, we have no guarantee of a healthy and pain-free tomorrow, and we have no guarantee that those we love will be there with us tomorrow. A little travel, a good meal, a lovely symphony, a favorite bottle of wine, a charitable gift... all make memories that will be our comfort and out mainstays in a fast-approaching future.

Though, if that interplanetary jaunt is a "go," sign me on.

-- Cinghiale
|
| "We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are." Anais Nin

cinghiale wrote:I like the thread title, but think that the asteroid bit steers the main idea in the wrong direction.

Usually, it takes something like a health scare or the unanticipated death of a close friend or family member to serve as a wake up call. There are lots of commonly occurring, everyday kinds of factors that should keep the high priority of appreciating every precious moment in balance with, as letsgobobby so pointedly puts it, watching our money "grow into a big pile."

Why not delay all gratification? We have no guarantee of tomorrow, we have no guarantee of a healthy and pain-free tomorrow, and we have no guarantee that those we love will be there with us tomorrow. A little travel, a good meal, a lovely symphony, a favorite bottle of wine, a charitable gift... all make memories that will be our comfort and out mainstays in a fast-approaching future.

Though, if that interplanetary jaunt is a "go," sign me on.

With you all the way on this one, every word, right up to the interplanetary jaunt.

Fortunately it has been shown that over the last 30 years that small value stock returns correlate with frequency of meteor impacts, so those who tilt should be safe for the next millenium or so. If a meteor hits your house, your small value stocks will probably go up enough that you can buy a new house (assuming you were not in the house when the meteor hit).

cinghiale wrote:I like the thread title, but think that the asteroid bit steers the main idea in the wrong direction.

Usually, it takes something like a health scare or the unanticipated death of a close friend or family member to serve as a wake up call. There are lots of commonly occurring, everyday kinds of factors that should keep the high priority of appreciating every precious moment in balance with, as letsgobobby so pointedly puts it, watching our money "grow into a big pile."

Why not delay all gratification? We have no guarantee of tomorrow, we have no guarantee of a healthy and pain-free tomorrow, and we have no guarantee that those we love will be there with us tomorrow. A little travel, a good meal, a lovely symphony, a favorite bottle of wine, a charitable gift... all make memories that will be our comfort and out mainstays in a fast-approaching future.

Though, if that interplanetary jaunt is a "go," sign me on.

With you all the way on this one, every word, right up to the interplanetary jaunt.

Let's get back on this planet - to decide on spending your money now, or save for later.

To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Fallible wrote:With you all the way on this one, every word, right up to the interplanetary jaunt.

Let's get back on this planet - to decide on spending your money now, or save for later.

LadyGeek,

My reply to Cinghale's post, but detached from it here, may have been misunderstood. I was agreeing entirely with Cinghale’s sensitively worded reply on delayed gratification because I share many of the experiences he mentioned. The interplanetary-jaunt reference, both his and mine, were just brief asides (a few words in my case) and a reference to the previous posts. Without Cinghale's post here, my reply alone may appear to be only about the jaunt.

I feel like saving money buys you more freedom. I don't neccesarily equate that with buying more things. I am a man with very modest taste and a perfect day for me is taking my wife for a walk in the park or just spending a day with her doing nothing but watching movies on TV. I don't need to take expensive vacations or buy things to feel like I'm not living my life.

I do enjoy going on vacation, but it can be anything. Just spending time with my family makes me feel like my life is worth living.

I don't particularly like my job so having more money saved and being mortgage free makes my work life seem more bearable. In the back of my mind I know if I ever get laid off I might be a little uncomfortable, but I would still have a roof over my head and options that people with debt and no savings would not have. That is one of the main reasons I do what I do.

letsgobobby wrote:In a community where a slacker is someone who saves only 1/3 of his income, let's not forget the purpose of Bogleheadism is to have money to do things with. Not to have it grow into a big pile.

I think it is more about not doing things. Not having to go to a job, when I am in my late 50s and beyond. Not having to do things myself that I don't want to do, because I can comfortably pay other people to do them. Not having to sell my house to afford retirement.

Like the poster above, my pile is for freedom and security, not getting more stuff and not for more going and doing.

I look at it this way - if I was diagnosed with a fast progressing, terminal illness tomorrow, would I regret not haven't spent, traveled, acquired and overall "lived" more?My answer is no. We've traveled extensively domestically and a fair amount internationally, we have a big old "money pit" 1950's house and big yard, a fabulous wife of 28 years, two great kids who will graduate without any college debt, three "better than basic" vehicles that everybody likes, pets, hobbies, toys etc. We don't agonize over every purchase but rather set a savings rate, pay that first and spend the rest as worry and carefree as the amount will allow.

Do we live beneath our means? Absolutely. I'd guess our lifetime savings rate is 20-25%. I'm sure we could have in the past and could now save 50% or more if we had nixed a great deal of our past and current lifestyle extras. But if I did that and learned the game was up early, would I be sorry I delayed nearly all immediate gratification? Absolutely - I would be filled with regret. I wonder about the people that say they are single, live in a small apartment, don't have a car or any costly activities and save 60%. To each his own of course - but is that living?

We save the amount we save not to make a big pile pile of money to gaze at, but rather for the four biggies - 1) to have our kids graduate from college debt free, 2) to blow up our careers when the kids are out of college in our mid 50's, 3) then embark on a comfortable and fun "Life 2.0" without the requirement to ever again work for others, and 4) by that time have a nice home in good condition owned free and clear and with no other debts. We could save a lot more money than we do now but if anyone suggested it, my response would be - but why?

Last edited by MnD on Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MnD wrote:I look at it this way - if I was diagnosed with a fast progressing, terminal illness tomorrow, would I regret not haven't spent, traveled, acquired and overall "lived" more?My answer is no. We've traveled extensively domestically and a fair amount internationally, we have a big old "money pit" 1950's house and big yard, a fabulous wife of 28 years, two great kids who will graduate without any college debt, three "better than basic" vehicles that everybody likes, pets, hobbies, toys etc. We don't agonize over every purchase but rather set a savings rate, pay that first and spend the rest as worry and carefree as the amount will allow.

Do we live beneath our means? Absolutely. I'd guess our lifetime savings rate is 20-25%. I'm sure we could have in the past and could now save 50% or more if we had nixed a great deal of our past and current lifestyle extras. But if I did that and learned the game was up early, would I be sorry I delayed nearly all immediate gratification? Absolutely - I would be filled with regret. I wonder about the people that say they are single, live in a small apartment, don't have a car or any costly activities and save 60%. To each his own of course - but is that living?

We save the amount we save not to make a big pile pile of money to gaze at, but rather for the four biggies - 1) to have our kids graduate from college debt free, 2) to blow up our careers when the kids are out of college in our mid 50's, 3) then embark on a comfortable and fun "Life 2.0" without the requirement to ever again work for others, and 4) by that time have a nice home in good condition owned free and clear and with no other debts.

+1 Well Said

"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

I'm not convinced that living below one's means necessarily means you are foregoing gratification.

Let's take dining out for an example. Looking back, there is very little correlation between the price of a meal and how memorable it was. Or consumer items... I can think of lots of things I wish I hadn't bought. but hardly any that I didn't buy and wish I had.

Alex Frakt wrote:I'm not convinced that living below one's means necessarily means you are foregoing gratification.

+1Happiness is not having what you want.It's wanting what you have.

Stated another way, perhaps;MoneyIt can buy a house, but not a home.It can buy a clock, but not time.It can buy you a position, but not respect.It can buy you a bed, but not sleep.It can buy you a book, but not knowledge.It can buy you medicine, but not health.

My feeling is that we should live below your means, but frankly delaying all gratification is a really bad idea. Our existent if finite. If we are spending all of your time protecting yourself with insurance, why not live and experience. You can take trips to exotic places (within your means) now and do all of the things you can't do later. When you return to those places years later, you can still enjoy the places you visit and have pleasant memory of your previous visit.

I know some people always look at the future. When they are in school, they plan to go to a great college. When they have finish, they are working up to their perfect job, and then to perfect retirement. The journey is as important as the destination. In the end, we all end up dead.

MoneyIt can buy a house, but not a home.It can buy a clock, but not time.It can buy you a position, but not respect.It can buy you a bed, but not sleep.It can buy you a book, but not knowledge.It can buy you medicine, but not health.